Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Section 35AD in Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Kalpana, Madurai on 25 August, 2025Matching Fragments
2. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under:
"1. The order of the leached Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the base and in law.
2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction claimed by assessee u/s 35AD of the IT Act to the tune of Rs 13,02,56,562/- by holding that assessee was a 100 bed hospital, and hence an eligible specified business without taking cognizance of the evidences to the contrary on record.
CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored."
3. The assessee is a proprietor of Guru Hospital and filed her return of income on 21.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.12,31,450/-, after claiming deduction of Rs.13,02,56,562/- u/s. 35AD of the Act. A survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises, where it was found that the hospital is only 60 beds hospital, as against the 100 beds hospital required u/s. 35AD(8) of the Act. The A.O, therefore, reopened the assessment and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.35AD of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,02,56,562/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal for want of representation. The assessee thereafter approached the Hon'ble High Court, which set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed him to adjudicate the matter afresh.
revising the earlier erroneous certification of 57 beds to reflect 100 beds capacity. Evidence was also produced from government databases, Covid-19 portals, and insurance certifications supporting the 100-bed claim. Further, loan sanction documents from 2011 were filed, wherein the hospital was described as a 100-bed facility. After considering the additional evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had complied with the 100-bed requirement u/s. 35AD and accordingly deleted the disallowance.
5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R) relying on the assessment order has submitted that during inspection conducted u/s. 131A of the Act, it was found that the hospital had only 60 beds, and hence the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s. 35AD of the Act. The Ld. D.R further contended that some of the evidence furnished by the assessee, such as reliance on the Covid-19 portal, was much after the relevant assessment year. He also argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the certificate from the Joint Director, Medical and Rural Health Services, Madurai, which was issued under the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Rules, 2018, that came into effect subsequent to the relevant year, instead of relying on Kalpana :- 5 -: